President Bush owes no apology for the war with Iraq

Union Leader ^ | 2/05/04 | David Horowitz

[kattracks]

AMID ALL the flak over the resignation and testimony of weapons sleuth David Kay and the savage attacks on President Bush’s war decision by the Democratic contenders, the most obvious unasked question is: Why should the President be on the defensive over a war as good as this one?

Casualties were minimal, 25 million people were freed, and a brutal regime was dismantled — a prison for children was liberated and mass graves stopped being filled. Why should Bush have to apologize for a war that brought Libya’s Moammar Ghadafy to heel, made the Syrians and Iranians more pliant and has killed or taken into custody thousands of terrorist soldiers and allies?

The flap over missing weapons of mass destruction is really beside the point because virtually every intelligence agency in the Western world thought the weapons were there, as did the U.N. inspection team. Moreover, Saddam Hussein was given four months to prove he had destroyed the weapons that U.N. inspectors had already established that he possessed. These included thousands of tons of nerve gas, anthrax and other chemical and biological goodies. What became of these? No one knows.

Yet 80 percent of New Hampshire Democrats voted for candidates who are attacking the President’s decision. This is an ominous portent for the nation’s future. Democrats have been so seduced by their “hate Bush” passions that they will oppose anything he has done. In the process, they have forgotten that Bill Clinton and Al Gore called for regime change in Iraq and got congressional endorsement for that policy. If President Clinton had had the courage — or was it just focus? — to invade Iraq, most of the Democrats now attacking the President would have been cheering him on.

Here’s another way of looking at the Democrats’ curious response. What if Clinton, instead of idly standing by and letting a million Tutsis be hacked to death in interethnic feuds, had saved everyone by sending a military force into Rwanda and justified it by saying the Hutus had nuclear weapons? Assuming he did not make the case out of whole cloth but out of faulty intelligence reports, would a single liberal have complained?

The facts are that Clinton and almost every Democrat now whining about the war in Iraq were on record calling for regime change in Iraq and believing that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Sen. John Kerry was privy to the very intelligence reports he now attacks the President for believing.

The argument over the war — at the time the actual decision was made — was whether to follow through on a U.N. ultimatum or give Saddam another year to hide whatever he had and to make preparations for more mischief abroad or at home. And while it may be perfectly reasonable to argue about the justification to go to war, calling the President a deceiver and accusing him of sacrificing Americans for no particular cause is not a reasonable argument. It is a stab in the back of the commander-in-chief and the nation whose security he is defending. And not only in respect to the President but to all Americans, especially the troops in harm’s way.

Consider what would happen if we got into a confrontation with Syria or Iran or China and the President — this one or the next — claimed that the enemy posed an imminent threat? Given the smear campaign of the “antiwar” Democrats, who is going to believe him?

David Horowitz, author of “Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey,” is the editor of Frontpagemag.com.

[ChadGore]

bttt

[ChadGore]

bump

[Kaslin]

Great editorial by David Horowitz

BTTP

[Huck]

The flap over missing weapons of mass destruction is really beside the point

Well, after David Kay's testimony it's going to have to be. Had we ever found anything, I'll bet it would have been the point. But, as it stands, they'll go with plan b and, like this essay, lead with the humanitarian angle.

[sauropod]

read later

[ZULU]

If Bush backpedals on his invasion of Iraq - its all over. He's finished.

There were solid reasons for our involvement there beyond WMD and the jury is still out on those.

As ALWAYS, the Democrats are behaving exactly as what they are - mendacious, self-serving traitors.

[MrTed]

Consider what would happen if we got into a confrontation with Syria or Iran or China and the President — this one or the next — claimed that the enemy posed an imminent threat? Given the smear campaign of the “antiwar” Democrats, who is going to believe him?

This statement is what I fear most about the current political environment. The shortsighted power grabbing tactics of the Democrats are damaging any ability we have to respond to threats ("perceived", "gathering", "imminent", or "actual"), either through preventative, preemptive, or retaliatory actions.

That is why the character of the person leading this country is of utmost importance. To quote J.C.Watts: ”Character is doing what’s right when nobody is looking.” Since much of what a President must do in fighting any war cannot be done in the light of day if it is to be effective, his (or her) character must be without question.

I believe George W. Bush still passes this test. I find it hard to name any Democrat, let alone one of their candidates that does.

[sirchtruth]

The flap over missing weapons of mass destruction is really beside the point because virtually every intelligence agency in the Western world thought the weapons were there, as did the U.N. inspection team. Moreover, Saddam Hussein was given four months to prove he had destroyed the weapons that U.N. inspectors had already established that he possessed. These included thousands of tons of nerve gas, anthrax and other chemical and biological goodies. What became of these? No one knows.

And that is why Bush had to go in!!...Saddam NOT Bush lead the world to believe he had these WMD by NOT providing an answer to where they went. By not showing proof of their destruction. Because of Saddam's deception and cover ups the world could only conclude that he still had them and was hiding them, so therefore Bush's justification for going to war was totally correct.

Guess the scumbag Kerry will have to jump on another failing issue for his botoxic campaign.

[GraniteStateConservative]

He won't backpedal on the invasion. He'll start doing what he should have done earlier-- laying out intelligence supporting each side of the WMD argument and saying why he agreed with one side and not the other (like his stem cell decision). He'll also talk about the other non-WMD reasons for the invasion. Tim will ask him why did the invasion have to begin in March 2003. I don't know what Bush's response will be.

[garylmoore]

Yet 80 percent of New Hampshire Democrats voted for candidates who are attacking the President’s decision.

The only thing they (liberals) care about is getting someone in that will push their agenda, they care more about homo marriage and abortion, ect. than the protection of our country.

[Timeout]

Which is worse?

A president (Clinton) who believed Saddam posed a threat, that he had WMD and intended to use or sell them, and that regime change was the only way to remove the threat...yet did nothing.

Or a president who received the same intelligence, updated in a post-9/11 world, determined the threat had to be neutralized, and did just that?

People seem to have forgotten Clinton's huge buildup of forces in the Arab deserts in 1998. An enormous invasion force was gathered to force Saddam to allow inspectors in. Then Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and concluded that he could "do business" with Saddam. Clinton tucked tail and withdrew the forces and...Ba da bing!...Saddam kicked out the inspectors two weeks later. 4 years passed before they would return.

Kerry et al, in their opposition to invasion last year, would've had us repeat that sorry episode. Once again building up forces to force inspections, but heaven forbid we should use them. How happy would we have made Saddam by handing him the opportunity to leave our troops sweltering in the desert with their equipment breaking down and training going stale? In light of the 1998 episode, it wasn't an option. When Bush sent in the forces in late 2002 the only way they were coming home was by way of Baghdad....and everyone knew it, despite what they say today.

[Turbo Pig]

Systematic destruction of crucial information, dual purpose equipment, delivery systems that were illegal under UN resolutions, admitted intent to aquire more WMDs, intellegence prior to the war on WMDs that were never accounted for...Just because the inspectors haven't found a drum of VX, or a bag full of Ricin, doesn't mean there was not a threat. Some people are so blinded by their thirst for power, or hatred of the Bush administration that they can't see the forest for the trees.

No, actually that statement is wrong. They REFUSE to acknowledge that they have seen it. What's worse, is that they care so little about human suffering that the lives of hundreds of thousands of murdered people, and millions of oppressed people mean nothing to them, other than some sort of ploy foisted on the US by the Bush administration.

For the record, we should have dismantled the Hussien regime after the USS Stark incident at the earliest, and during first Gulf War at the latest. Thanks to people with no backbone, and presidents that did not do their duty the Iraqi people specifically, and the US and world in general, was subjected to a further decade or more of sensless terror.

[maica]

The 'non-biased' media are trying today to cast clouds over President Bush for not informing the Washington intelligentia that a ricin-laced letter had been sent to the White House last fall. These 'non-partisan' reporters are claiming that W was derelict, in unnecessarily risking the lives of, presumably, the Washington press corps.

[SquirrelKing]

bttt

Thanks for the post!

[GraniteStateConservative]

Clinton, like other nations and other people, felt that Saddam wasn't a direct threat to the US because in 1999 and thereafter, he didn't have the capacity to launch WMD at us and he didn't have stockpiles and that inspections were keeping him boxed in as it relates to this issue.

Saddam deserved to be ousted, certainly. We could have probably gotten a huge contingent of troops on the border had it been clear they were there to force inspections alone. The number of our troops sweltering would have been small and they'd be cycled back for R&R more frequently than now.

[FlipWilson]

The Democrats won a victory on this issue long ago. Before the war, they demanded to know THE reason for ousting Saddam (suddenly having amnesia as most of them forgot why they had pushed for such an action when Clinton was POTUS.) Bush gave them four or five good reasons, but they clamored for ONE and only ONE. Bush let them back him into that corner and he chose WMD as THE reason. It was a victory for the Democrats right then and there. Why? Because no matter what was found in Iraq, the Democrats were going to say it did not justify the war. If we had found Saddam sitting buck naked on a nuclear warhead, the Democrats still would have said the war was not justified (i.e. with Saddam sitting on it, how could they have fired it? There was no danger!!! Bush lied!!!). This was going to be a campaign issue no matter what.

Somehow, the issue went from one of "is Iraq in compliance with the U.N resolutions?" to one of "is Iraq going to launch a nuclear attack against us at any moment?" If the former is the issue then Kay et.al. have found more than enough to support the war. If the issue is the latter, then no matter what Kay found it would not have sufficed.

I actually think Bush can turn this to his advantage, but he has to take action sooner than his campaign may have planned. First, he must refocus on the fact that the issue was one of Saddam being in compliance with UN resolutions. Second, he must continue to hammer home what was IN the Kay report, not what was out. For example, Kay testified that our intelligence was faulty in what it said Iraq had (WMD) and what it said Iraq did not have (connections to Terrorists) The second reason alone, if emphasized, dwarfs the WMD issue. Bush needs to keep emphasizing that, in effect, the Democrat position boils down to one of believing and supporting Saddam Hussein over the POTUS. Bush needs some advertising pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats on this issue. (I could see it now, show Kerry on the stump saying the war was not justified then cut to a shot of him giving a speech on the Senate floor saying Iraq has WMD)

Finally, Bush must undercut the foundations of the Democrat lies. For example, Kerry acts as if he relied on the President and not intelligence briefings when deciding to support the resolution for war. It must be made clear that Kerry, and other members of the Senate, are privy to the SAME intelligence as the President.

[ZULU]

The Liberals and the Liberal media learned a long time ago what Hitler always said. Tell a big lie and tell it often enough and people will believe it.

They did it with Senator Joe McCarthy, they did it with Richard Nixon, they did it with Ronald Reagan, they did it with Dan Quayle, and they are trying to do it with George Bush II.

They even do it in reverse. They kept saying that Monica Lewinski and Clinton's sexual predation was just a personal sexual matter. They said it over and over again and people eventually believed it.

The conservatives have learned how powerful a tool the media can be by their use of talk radio, the Internet and Fox News. What I can't understand is WHY there are no major conservative national newspapers to challenge the likes of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, etc. etc.

If I ever became a billionaire, the first thing I'd do is start a conservative newspaper. The NEXT thing I'd do is start a University for middle income and low income kids with brains that taught history and politics from a conservative perspective.

[maica]

The Wall Street Journal's Editorial page is conservative and widely read. The NYTimes has such power, not for its circulation numbers, but because it sets the tone for the network evening news broadcasts.

In the UK the daiy papers openly take sides, so readers can openly read the view they prefer. I guess talk radio and the internet will have to do for us at present.

[lepton]

Kerry et al, in their opposition to invasion last year, would've had us repeat that sorry episode. Once again building up forces to force inspections, but heaven forbid we should use them. How happy would we have made Saddam by handing him the opportunity to leave our troops sweltering in the desert with their equipment breaking down and training going stale? In light of the 1998 episode, it wasn't an option.

Absolutely dead-on.

There was no excuse for the U.N. not following through on its threats either.